Biased Indiana Elections officials call objectors birthers, dont address and matters of law and ignore evidence that Obama is using a social security number that was never assigned to him. When Obama started using this stolen SSN he was most likely an Indonesian citizen as State Department documents prove that he was known as Soebarkah.

First hand account here, unedited .

I hate to be the bearer of bad news today, but I was along side Orly Taitz as she did a hell of a job bringing up the subject of Obama not having a valid social security number at The Indiana Election Division Hearings candidate challenges. I am not sure of the name of the older Democrat on the panel of Election Board, but he basically stated that how does a non-valid social security number from Connecticut keep Obama from Being a US Citizen ( and therefore President of the US)? My jaw about hit the floor!!! Nah, no fraud here!, keep moving along folks, keep moving on. Orly gave more evidence( she brought along with her) to the panel besides the over 200 pages of Georgia Court case where many experts in their respective fields testified under oath to the fact Obama is a fraud. The chairman said the extra info could not be used as evidence!!!

Another dem on the election panel said most of the GA Court pages we turned in were not validated & did not have anything to do with the case, and basically it was a setup from the get-go. As Orly presented her case as a witness for us (since she was at the Ga Court Hearings last month), the tempers started to flare on both sides. One gentleman in the audience stood up and told the Chairman that he was being rude to Ms. Taitz and then we all took a 10 minute recess to cool our heads. Well, after Orly explained the connection to Obamas fraudulent social security number, birth certificate from Hawaii, and mothers records-it did not matter. We lost the challenge 4-0, and get this There were all of the local tv channels cameras around the perimeter taping the proceedings and there were media people on each side of the election panel but during our brief 10 minutes-that is all the time the Chairman said we would get to present our case- all of the tv cameras disappeared and most of the media left!! Nah, there is no conspiracy here. No media to even interview us after the verdict in the halls outside of the Indiana House Chamber of the Indiana Statehouse. This Country is screwed, blue-ed, and tattoo-ed. This Country and The Constitution is over if Obama gets in one more time. Time is running out. Lets pray that Sheriff Joe of Arizona has better news for us all. God Bless K. S.

I agree with you, it’s just that the Nazis kept good records, and the Communists, world-wide, hid and destroyed records. I see direct born-again Bolsheviks in and near the administration, from Jack Lew to Ezekiel Emmanuel. They even wear the Bolshevik glasses. We might have won against the Nazis, but we lost the war to Communists, who have never gone away and are now surging proud and strong.

When are folks going to give up on this avenue to “unseat” Obama? While there may very well be enough real evidence to prove that Obama is not eligible (he is definitely a fraud, regardless of the state of “Natural Born Citizen” status), no court with any real authority is going to do a darned thing about Obama. I honestly believe that even if there was what any reasonable judge could not deny were to come out - showing without a doubt that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS - nothing would be done. We have already seen the US Supreme court refuse to even take a serious look - Foot, there is “reasonable doubt” about his BC that there should be some mega official investigation.

But alas - as I posted back in 2009 soon after his “immaculate” installation (thank you Rush), no judge or politician has the intestinal fortitude to take any meaningful action. They know that, regardless of how horribly unpopular Obama might get to be - that there would be widespread rioting in the streets, property would be massively damaged, and who knows how many people would die.

"There were all of the local tv channels cameras around the perimeter taping the proceedings and there were media people on each side of the election panel but during our brief 10 minutes-that is all the time the Chairman said we would get to present our case- all of the tv cameras disappeared and most of the media left!! Nah, there is no conspiracy here. No media to even interview us after the verdict in the halls outside of the Indiana House Chamber of the Indiana Statehouse."

They know that, regardless of how horribly unpopular Obama might get to be - that there would be widespread rioting in the streets, property would be massively damaged, and who knows how many people would die.

I absolutely do not buy that and never have. That's the elites' excuse for enabling and covering a coup. 0bummer and his gang can't even set up a proper Attack Watch or Occupukes or SEICU takedown of anything. They can only rule by recess appointment and executive order. And they can only do that for one reason:

Republicans in judges are gutless cowards and/or complicit. This "fear" of rioting is getting old, I am 100% sure it is made up by the freaking gutless coward Rs so they don't have to stand on principles. Makes me want to puke, it does.

14
posted on 02/24/2012 9:24:31 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)

1. On the presidential candidate's Indiana application form, does the candidate have to supply his Social Security number?

2. Social Security application form: As many of us know, any person can easily get a copy of his own Social Security application form after paying a small fee.

3. My point is this: President Obama could quickly put a stop to this Social Security number controversy by simply getting a copy of his 1970s Social Security application form and showing it to the public just like he got a copy of his Hawaii long form birth certificate and showed it to the public back in April 2011.

4. Of course, I don't believe that President Obama will ever release a copy of his Social Security application form---we can see a copy of President Eisenhower's Social Security application, because I believe that the public can get a copy of a person's application form after a person dies---out of the kindness of his heart. No way.

6. If candidate Obama stubbornly refuses to release his 1970s Social Security application form, I can only conclude that President Obama is trying to hide something, because a Social Security application form contains only very basic information about the applicant, like his name and his address.

7. To Indiana election officials: If President Obama used a false Social Security number on his Indiana presidential candidate application form, then he is committing fraud, and he should not be allowed to put his name on the presidential ballot for the Nov. 2012 election.

Indiana was the worst possible venue for an eligibility challenge because it is home to the ONLY appeals court, the Ankeny Court, to have ruled on the NBC issue...and that was in favor of Obama.

So the two of four GOP lawyers who were commissioners were bound by the law of IN ruling that Obama was NBC, as pronounced by their appeals court.

Also, the burden of proof in IN was on the challengers even if the candidate didn't show up, unlike GA where a default was available in the event of a no-show by Obama (which the challengers declined in GA).

The commissioners were forced to resort to "Since when does a president need a social security number to be eligible?" arguments to attempt to deflect Dr. Taitz's speculations that Barry was using a SS# never issued to him in HI.

While you’re at it, please pray that Orly Taitz sees the light and adopts a supportive role in this issue in deference to other more competent, level-headed attorneys. I know her conscience and personality will not allow her to withdraw from the issue entirely and she need not do that. She has much to offer in the form of energy, ideas and resourcefulness.

I have worked with Orly Taitz in person and electronically. I admire her resolve and determination, especially in light of the fact that this is an adopted country for her. Ask yourself if you would be as committed to tilting at windmills upon relocating to a new country. She has plenty of guts and commitment.

However, as an attorney and spokesperson, she is not capable of getting this job done. Her thought processes, modes of expression and practices are not organized and disciplined enough to prevail in a US court. She is so angered by the injustice of this issue - as we all are - she has deomstrated time and again that she cannot stop herself from verbally lashing out at precisely the wrong time, invariably aggravating and alienating every public official she encounters. In so doing, she creates a very useful target for Obama apologists who use her shortcomings as a communicator to discredit the entire eligibility argument.

Although it is sad and unfortunate, in order for the eligibility movement to prevail, Orly Taitz must withdraw from the role of spokesperson - that is, assuming someone with a more conservative demeanor and skillful legal talent is prepared to step forward and be as relentless as she has been.

Orly cannot use a civil law eligibility hearing of any kind to bring criminal charges against Barry. The rights of the accused and the standards of evidence are totally different in a criminal case of fraud.

Arpaio, on the other hand, might just have found evidence to support a criminal action against Barry. Arpaio, unlike Orly, is understands and is experienced in criminal law and how to bring a prosecution of an accused person without violating their rights.

“Although it is sad and unfortunate, in order for the eligibility movement to prevail, Orly Taitz must withdraw from the role of spokesperson - that is, assuming someone with a more conservative demeanor and skillful legal talent is prepared to step forward and be as relentless as she has been.”

IMO, Orly as a personality disorder that will preclude her from stepping down. Fortunately, others that stepped forward to pursue legal openings with more tactical probability of success, as with the two NBC cases in GA that were heard at the same time as Orly's.

IMO, only a dwindling few number of eligibility activists (mostly those who are legally illiterate) are willing to entrust their cases to Orly, much to the chagrin of Fogbowers who expect FReepers to be “shedding birfer tears” over having our “hopes dashed” each time Orly goes into court and fails. By now for most FReepers there are no expectations of success with Orly or tears when she fails.

Orly does articulate the NBC issue and Barry's appearance of identity fraud well in front of a camera, but she is hopeless in the courtroom as she has no concept of how to get witness testimony or evidence into a court record.

To the shock and horror of Fogbowers, Orly managed successfully to subpoena Barry in GA and appears to have backed him into a desperation no-show move which opened up the opportunity first for a possibly damaging default, but ultimately for the other two competent attorneys to get the NBC issue before Malihi without opposition from Jablonski and on track to go to SCOTUS.

OT but need to clarify. You seem to be on top of these issues.
Ga. gave a stern warning about Obama’s FTA. Then ignored it. Now Indiana gave a stern warning for FTA. Did Obama appear, or a lawyer for him? I don’t understand this pattern. Is it just to make everyone think they are really serious about this issue? Info anyone!

“Ga. gave a stern warning about Obamas FTA. Then ignored it. Now Indiana gave a stern warning for FTA. Did Obama appear, or a lawyer for him? I dont understand this pattern. Is it just to make everyone think they are really serious about this issue? Info anyone!”

The GA SOS warned Barry that Malihi would likely be offering the plaintiffs a default in lieu of a hearing which plaintiffs would be entitled to in the event of Barry's failure to appear either in person or through his lawyer.

That is exactly what happened. Malihi offered a default in lieu of a hearing. Orly, not being well-grounded in the law, misinterpreted that to mean that she would get BOTH a default AND a hearing. Hatfield and Irion appear to have realized that they would be waiving a right to default by going ahead with the hearing and they hoped that Mahihi would rule Barry was NOT NBC on the merits and not as a meaningless unopposed default.

Although the burden of proof was never ruled on by Malihi, at a minimum there is a burden of appearing to avoid default, UNLIKE in Indiana where there is NO requirement that a candidate appear to defend a challenge and IIUC the default is that in Indiana the candidate stays on the ballot unless the challenger meets the burden of proof. In Indiana, Orly did not present ANY admissible evidence to refute Barry's candidacy, but only speculation and unauthenticated hearsay documents and testimony.

Thanks for the info. I didn’t understand the non appearance in Id. That makes sense if thats the rule there. Sounds like they should have taken the default in Ga.
Any info on the Arizona Hearing on thursday. Haven’t heard a word.Even checked Barnett’s site. Nothing!

I disagree. They were correct in refusing the default and demanding a hearing on the record on the NBC issue.

IMO, Jablonski, Holder and Barry would have preferred that Hatfield and Irion take the default because it would not have provided a path to SCOTUS on the NBC issue but would have provided Barry the opportunity to claim that the racist GA GOP admin had removed him from the ballot in a state he is quaranteed to lose anyway. Remember that it was GOP SOS Kemp who had the final say.

Taitz probably would have taken the default if she had known that she was giving it up to get a hearing. Her evidence was all hearsay (unauthenticated under FRE 902), inadmissible and therefore not “probative” (useful by the judge in making a ruling that would withstand appeal by Barry).

BTW, Fogbowers were horrified when a regular member, “Balak,” (vouched for by Foggy Blade himself) went “birfer” and dared to suggest that Barry could have and should have shut down Orly this week by simply showing up and presenting a certified LFBC. “Balak” suggested that failure to present a certified BC in court could give amunition to “birfers.”

Producing Barry's BC in evidence is something that other prominent Fogbowers had suggested during the GA hearing as having been Jablonski's “secret plan” to humiliate the plaintiffs...right up until it wasn't.

Fogbowers can't tolerate any suggestion that the reason Barry hasn't produced a certified BC is he doesn't have one that hasn't been forged and fraudulently vouched for by HI DOH. For this, “Balak” was denounced and shunned by several notable Fogbowers, although others still defended him.

Reminding Fogbowers that Barry has NEVER produced his BC into evidence at any hearing caused some of them to react like Dracula being shown a crucifix!p>

My personal irony is that my parents and grandparents escaped from the Reds, then Nazis, then Communists. All to go to what, at that time, was a beacon of light. Only to fall, within their and my lifetime.

he was most likely an Indonesian citizen as State Department documents prove that he was known as Soebarkah.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2728155/posts

Soebarkah

Lame Cherry ^ | 5/30/2100 | Lame Cherry

Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:23:40 AM by mojitojoe

There has been so much written and conjecture on the forced out into the open Obama passport documents that I have not had much interest in exploring them in the name Soebarkah which appears on the document as one of the listed names of Barack Hussein Obama.........

44
posted on 02/25/2012 9:24:30 PM PST
by Bellflower
(The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)

Has Obama ever been a licensed driver from years ago until recently? I have never heard anything about him having driver's licenses and what info was on them as far as his name etc. If he has never driven that is peculiar in itself.

46
posted on 02/25/2012 9:52:12 PM PST
by Bellflower
(The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)

"QUESTION: How did Obamas social security number get assigned in 1890 if the Social Security Act was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14, 1935?'

Not sure where you read that typo, but I recall having seen it also. What is alleged is that the SSN that "Obama" is currently using was originally issued to a person (now deceased) born in 1890, and not to "Obama".

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.